linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] vfs.git pile 3

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=whJvgykcTnR+BMJNwd+me5wvg+CxjSBeiPYTR1B2g5NpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Aug 2022 15:09:23 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs.git pile 3 - dcache

On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 2:55 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> The original patch years ago use to have:
>
>  preempt_disable_rt()
>
>  preempt_enable_rt()

That may be visually simpler, but I dislike how it's named for some
implementation detail, rather than for the semantic meaning.

Admittedly I think "preempt_enable_under_spinlock()" may be a bit
*too* cumbersome as a name. It does explain what is going on - and
both the implementation and the use end up being fairly clear (and the
non-RT case could have some debug version that actually tests that
preemption has already been disabled).

But it is also a ridiculously long name, no question about that.

I still feel is less cumbersome than having that
"IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)" test that also then pretty much
requires a comment to explain what is going on.

            Linus